Action: Other biodiversity: Use organic fertilizer instead of inorganic

Key messages

Plants (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found more plants and plant biomass, but similar numbers of plant species, in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to plots with inorganic fertilizer.

Reptiles (0 studies)

Implementation options (0 studies)

Supporting evidence from individual studies

1

A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2007–2013 in a fallow field in Campania, Italy, found more plants and plant biomass, but similar numbers of plant species, in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer. Plants: More plants were found in plots with compost, compared to mineral fertilizer, in one of two years (2013: 1,023 vs 655 individuals/m2).More plant biomass was found in plots with compost, compared to mineral fertilizer, in both years (2012: 401 vs 126; 2013: 301 vs 162 g dry weight/m2). Similar numbers of plant species were found in plots with compost or mineral fertilizer (12–18 species). Methods: Compost was added to four plots (2007–2009: 30; 2010–2013: 15 Mg/ha dry weight). Mineral fertilizer was added to four other plots (NPK fertilizer, twice/year, 50 kg/ha). The plots were 10 x 5 m. The compost was made from municipal solid waste and urban yard trimmings. The compost was added, and plots were tilled, in April each year (20 cm depth). Horticultural crops were grown in 2007–2011. In March 2012 and 2013, all plants (spontaneous growth) were collected from 1 x 1 m quadrats in each plot.

Related Actions

Download reference details

This option allows you to download the individual studies which make up this action.

Please select your preferred method below.

Text (full)Text (references only)RIS

Submit additional evidence

Thank you for considering submitting additional evidence about this intervention. Ideally we would like all submitted evidence to have been published in peer-reviewed literature. However, we do welcome evidence of any nature.

Please be aware that given the volume of work we have we cannot guarantee a response to every submission.

Fields with * are required.

Name *

Affiliation *

Email *

Message *

Attach files You may submit up to three additional files

File 1

File 2

File 3

Verification Code

Effectiveness

An assessment by independent experts of the effectiveness of this action based on the summarized evidence (0% = not effective, 100% = highly effective). This score is based on the direction and size of the effects reported in each study. Actions with high scores typically have large, desirable effects on the target species/habitat in each study. There is some variation between actions, e.g. 100% effectiveness in adding underpasses under roads for bat conservation will likely have different impacts to 100% effectiveness in restoring marsh habitat. The effectiveness score does not consider the quantity or quality of studies; a single, poorly designed study could generate a high effectiveness score. The effectiveness score is combined with the certainty and harms scores to determine the overall effectiveness category (for more details see https://www.conservationevidence.com/content/page/79).

Harms

An assessment by independent experts of the harms of this action to the target group of species/habitat, based on the summarized evidence (0% = none, 100% = major undesirable effects). Undesirable effects on other groups of species/habitats are not considered in this score. The harms score is combined with the effectiveness and certainty scores to determine the overall effectiveness category (for more details see https://www.conservationevidence.com/content/page/79).

Certainty

An assessment by independent experts of the certainty of the evidence for this action based on the summarized evidence (0% = no evidence, 100% = high quality evidence). How certain can we be that the effectiveness score applies to all targets of the intervention (e.g. all birds for an action in the bird synopsis)? This score is based on the number, quality and coverage (species, habitats, geographical locations) of studies. Actions with high scores are supported by lots of well-designed studies with a broad coverage relative to the scope of the intervention. However, the definition of "lots" and "well-designed" will vary between interventions and synopses depending on the breadth of the subject. The certainty score is combined with the effectiveness and harms scores to determine the overall effectiveness category (for more details see https://www.conservationevidence.com/content/page/79).

Overall Effectiveness Category

The overall effectiveness category is determined using effectiveness, certainty and harms scores generated by a structured assessment process with multiple rounds of anonymous scoring and commenting (a modified Delphi method). In this assessment, independent subject experts (listed for each synopsis) interpret the summarized evidence using standardised instructions. For more details see https://www.conservationevidence.com/content/page/79.